Staged conflicts in Austrian parliamentary debates
This paper analyzes the rhetorical formats used by Austrian members of parliament (MPs) to express disagreement
with previous speakers during the so-called ‘inaugural speech debates’. During these debates, MPs position themselves publicly as
either government or opposition party representatives. Disagreeing with previous debate contributions represents a positioning
practice that focuses on the interpersonal plane of interaction. The strict procedural rules of the debates, however, prevent MPs
from engaging in genuine conflict talk. MPs rather use four rhetorical formats for signalling conflict with a previous speaker.
This paper analyzes these strategies as well as their use by different groups of MPs and discusses their face aggravating/
impoliteness potential. Finally, it relates the results to previous studies of face work in political discourse.
Article outline
- 1.An exceptional case: A genuine interpersonal conflict during a parliamentary debate
- 2.Interactional features of parliamentary debates
- 2.1Participation framework and face work aspects of parliamentary debates
- 2.2Institutional framework for Austrian parliamentary debates
- 2.3Consequences of situational factors for conflict communication during parliamentary debates
- 3.Data and methods
- 3.1Data
- 3.2Categories of analysis
- 4.Results
- 4.1Quantitative results
- 4.2Metapragmatic contrast
- 4.3Norm related metapragmatic critique
- 4.4Interpersonal metapragmatic critique
- 4.5Metapragmatic style critique
- 5.Discussion and conclusions
- Notes
-
References
References (30)
References
Bull, Peter, Judy Elliot, Derrol Palmer and Libby Walker. 1996. “Why Politicians Are Three-Faced: The Face Model of Political Interviews”. British Journal of Social Psychology 351: 267–284. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2013. Analysing Political Speeches. London: Palgrave Macmillan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chilton, Paul Anthony. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practics. London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle”. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [URL]. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Dynel, Marta. 2011. “Revisiting Goffman’s Postulates on Participant Statuses in Verbal Interaction: Goffman on Participants in Verbal Interaction.” Language and Linguistics Compass 5(7): 454–465. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fetzer, Anita. 2006. “Minister, We Will See How the Public Judges You.’” Journal of Pragmatics 38(2): 180–95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goodwin, Marjorie-Harness. 1990. He-Said-She-Said. Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, Helmut. 1990. “Ein Gespenst geht um in Osterreich”. Textlinguistische Untersuchungen zum Populistischen Diskurs J. Haiders. In Sprache in der Politik – Politik in der Sprache. Analysen zum Öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Florian Menz, 191–208. Klagenfurt: Drava.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, Helmut. 1996. Streitgespräche: Zur Pragmatik einer Diskursform. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, Helmut. 1998. “Disagreeing: Sequential Placement and Internal Structure of Disagreements in Conflict Episodes”. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18 (4): 467–504. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gruber, Helmut. 2015b. “Policy-Oriented Argumentation or Ironic Evaluation: A Study of Verbal Quoting and Positioning in Austrian Politicians’ Parliamentary Debate Contributions”. Discourse Studies 17 (6): 682–702. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse”. Discourse and Society 12 (4): 451–72. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hess-Lüttich, Ernest W. B. 2007. “(Pseudo-)Argumentation in TV-Debates”. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (8): 1360–1370. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kadar, Daniel Z. and Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes: On the Context Sensitivity of Preference Structures”. Language in Society 22 (2): 193–216. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leech, Geoffrey Neil and Mick Short. 2007. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Pearson Education.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maynard, Douglas W. 1985. “How Children Start Arguments”. Language in Society 14 (1): 1–29. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Muntigl, Peter and William Turnbull. 1998. “Conversational Structure and Facework in Arguing”. Journal of Pragmatics 29 (3): 225–256. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stopfner, Maria. 2013. Streitkultur Im Parlament. Linguistische Analyse Der Zwischenruf im Österreichischen Nationalrat. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Verschueren, Jef. 1988. International News Reporting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Politics as Usual. Houndsmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.